Skip to main content

About your Search

20130201
20130228
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
chuck hagel who has been nominated to be secretary of defense has been proposing. he has said so many things against us even as a nation being nuclear armed and ready, that it is very disturbing to people all across the country. bill: if you think that, do you think we've lost the argument with iran over its nuclear program? is that time passed? >> well, i think that the time has passed. they now view it as, us versus them. sanctions have worked to lower the value of their currency. sanctions have had an impact on people through throughout the country of iran. but i don't believe they have had the impact that has been desired against the iranian government. bill: why are we sitting down and talking again? what's the expectation from something like this? >> i think very little would be expected. i would expect the iranians to have their arms folded in front of their chest and sitting there, perhaps, listening, but basically they're continuing to run out the clock. they may even talk a little bit about wanting to negotiate but they have no interest in, my opinion, bill, in negotiating o
the charge publicly against chuck hagel. yet he you voted to confirm him as defense secretary. he was sworn two hours ago at the pentagon. why the vote to favor him? >> i filibuster ited him white -- twice because i wanted more information. when republicans stick together we could get information. i was disappointed several on my side after they filibustered him up immediately announced they wouldn't continue the filibuster so we never got the information. i'm the same way on brennan. i want more information on drone strikes in america. on final passage though i take the position that the president does have some leeway and some prerogative who he appoints to political appointees. so i would like to get as much information as can. i will stick with the party, if the party will stick together to get more information. in the end i voted for john kerry also although i agree with almost nothing that john kerry represents. bill: will secretary hagel be a good and satisfactory defense secretary in your view? >> you know, i don't really know. there are many libertarian reasons not to be excited ab
, the republicans used the hagel nomination as leverage and they basically said we're going to hold this up until we get this information. the white house did not want to release it, they had refused to release it, they said that these emails within the administration were part of the deliberative process, but they knew that the hagel nomination might not get through without it and so they are going to release the information to try to satisfy the senators. now of course the interesting question is what is in the emails, why is it that this was from early on in the week after 9/11 when it was seen first as a terror attack and then suddenly it wasn't a terror attack and al-qaida was part of it, then suddenly al-qaida was not part of it, by the time susan rice came on "fox news sunday" that sunday, five days later, it was a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to the ante islam video that spun out of control. and the question is how do we get from this pint to that point? martha: that is really back to the seed of whatever wants a good grip on here. petraeus as head of the cia at the time said they k
, john brennan and for defense secretary, chuck hagel unless the president provides more information on the september 2012 attack on our consulate in benghazi, libya. listen to this. >> how could they say after panetta and dempsey said it was a terrorist attack that night, how could the president say for two weeks after the attack it was the result of a video? how could susan rice come on to show to say there is no evidence of a terrorist attack when sick tear of defense and joint chiefs knew that that night? i think that was a misleading narrative three weeks before our election. >> he is hanging onto this in a big way. joining me, kt mcfarland, fox news security analyst . what do you think he is saying, kt? >> what he is talking about is the most significant part. and that is the president had nothing to do with this. that the secretary of defense and the chairman of joint chiefs of staff now said at the beginning of this attack american embassy under attack, american ambassador gone missing they told the president and that was it. the president had nothing more to do with it. mart
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)